As soon as Mark Dayton retires, Chuckie will have the honor of being the dumbest Senator with a penis.
Posted on 10/01/2005 3:54:19 AM PDT by stocksthatgoup
Twenty-four hours before Chief Justice John Roberts's confirmation, Sen. Chuck Schumer of New York took to the Senate floor and issued a threat: If the president, when replacing Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, "sends us a nominee who is committed to an agenda of turning back the clock, . . . there will likely be a fight." Like John Kerry's "Bring it on," this may turn out to be all bluster and no bite. After all, Republicans hold a majority in the Senate. Not since LBJ's abortive elevation of Justice Abe Fortas to chief 37 years ago has a Supreme Court nominee faced a serious challenge in a Senate controlled by the president's party.
(Excerpt) Read more at opinionjournal.com ...
As soon as Mark Dayton retires, Chuckie will have the honor of being the dumbest Senator with a penis.
If the GOP Senators had any guts they'd take on the Dems. Unfortunatly they don't.
Not your typical Bush nominee, I'm afraid. The trouble with Brown is that she's a proven conservative and the President is bound to meet with intense resistance to her nomination.
I'm reminded of the classic western flick where the heroine employs some inept fellows to protect her ranch from bad guys. One of them promises her, "We'll stay and do what we can---long as there ain't no trouble." This President will keep his promise to appoint the right judges, just as long as they don't make any trouble for him in the Senate.
The right man won in 2004 and nothing can detract from his achievements in foreign affairs, but a man who couldn't even veto McCain-Feingold is very likely to disappoint us. I am sadly confident he will pick a moderate for the seat vacated by O'Connor.
Here's a reason: he couldn't see his way clear to veto McCain-Feingold.
There are plenty more reasons, like the way he said nothing about the 2nd Amendment violation in New Orleans, but he wasn't too busy to administer a slap to Bill Bennett...I'm not happy about it but there are numerous proofs that our President is no conservative. He is a moderate and he will leave us a moderate court.
You forgot Hillary Clinton!
However, I think the base should keep the pressure on the president. I send a number of letters on various subjects daily. Here's one
Dear President Bush, Lately I have read disturbing reports that you may be considering nominating a "moderate" to replace Sandra Day O'Conner in order to avoid a bitter and vicious fight with Senate Democrats. Please resist all such temptations. We voted for you, in large part, because you promised to nominate originality's to the Court, men (and women) who respected the Constitution and would not substitute their own opinions for the law. So far, you have been a man of honor, and we respect and support that. We WANT a fight with the Senate Democrats. We are in the majority. We have fought for over 30 years to rein in a lawless judiciary. Pick the most controversial nominee you can and stick a thumb in the eye of the socialist, secular Democrats. Thank you for your consideration. Keep up the good work.
Do something about the amount of immigration that we are getting. We are NOT a colony of the world, and we do not need countless aliens driving down wages for American citizens.
What makes you think he has a penis?
Shumer: The perfect example of the blowhard who has learned to love the sound of his own voice
Nope...Biden is even dumber.
The problem is not the Democrats. The problem is the RINOs. I am afraid that we cannot get 51 Republicans to vote for confirmation of a conservative Justice.
The one thing that has struck me about this administration is that they are not swayed by outside forces, which include letters (such as yours).
This can be a good thing, or a bad thing. Overall I believe it is a good thing, even when he does things I disagree with.
My thinking is as follows.
The founding fathers understood that a "pure" democracy is unworkable (except for very small organizations). First it would be impossible for the entire population to keep informed of every subject and second it would in the end lead to anarchy. As someone has posted elsewhere a democracy is where two wolfs and a sheep vote on what is for dinner.
We have a republic, which means (as we all know) that we elect people who will represent us. Now, I am old enough to know I am not going to find anyone who agrees 100% with what I believe, nor will you are anyone else. Which is why political parties were formed. We have similar beliefs, but don't agree on everything.
When we elect a President, we are electing someone who has similar beliefs as ourselves, but once elected the President is free to do what he thinks best. Keep in mind he is the President, not a dictator or King, he can not issue an order and expect to be obeyed. His role is to administer the Federal Government, enforce Federal Laws, and he can influence Congress in getting laws passed. In doing this he has opposition from the other political party, the extremes on both end of the political spectrum, the media, Congress, the courts and the bureaucracy itself. And let us not forget we are at War, and there are a few out there that would be happy to drop a nuclear bomb on us if they could. The President must content with all of that, and it helps if he is comfortable with who he is, and where he wants to lead us.
Some Presidents have attempted to follow polls to determine what they should do and I think this is because they really don’t have any core beliefs.
Now this is where I really like this President. He does not seem to be poll driven, he appears to know what it is he wants to do during his term in office.
Now, I may not agree with everything, but I knew when I voted for him he would do some things that irritated me, but that is the nature of our form of government. We elect people to use their best judgment. In the next election we can fire them if we wish, or if they are really bad, we can remove them from office.
With all due respect I doubt if your letter (even if it reached the President) would sway him. I don’t think I would want a man with self doubt and could be swayed by polls or critics as a President (see Carter and Clinton for examples of each type). I want a man that knows himself, knows his beliefs and is prepared to stake his (political) life, and the life of this country on them. I trust the President to do the right thing even when I think what he is doing is the wrong thing.
I mean, if I was smart enough to know the right thing in every situation, then I would run for President instead of typing comments on a forum.
I have a lot of opinions but the worse that can happen when I voice mine is I can embarrass myself, so there is little risk in me being wrong. If the President makes a bad decision, then many pay the price. That is the job he wanted, the job we gave him and why we pay him the big bucks. He really doesn’t need grief from the peanut gallery.
I worked so hard to get here, why should Chucky get a free ride?
A Democrat filibuster is a dead issue - - won't happen.
When Graham and DeWine walked into the scheme (the "Gang of Fourteen" deal) to trick the rats, they knew full well that they were going to take a hit from conservatives who were slow to figure it all out. And they did take a beating.
(Curiously, there are still some conservatives who apparently don't get it yet, even after Owens, Brown, Pryor and others have been confirmed, and even after it has been explained that Frist STILL has his finger hovering over "the nuclear button" and he can push it any time he needs to.)
At this point, thanks to the "extraordinary circumstances" language of "the deal", the rats are completely boxed in and our nervous "blue state" GOP Senators have the cover they need to vote nuclear if and when the time comes.
(It still boggles my mind that the Democrats walked right into the trap. I can hardly stop smiling!)
The Republicans needed to get a couple of ringers into the "Gang of Fourteen" in order for the scheme to work, and Graham and DeWine stepped up - - they are heroes.
The scheme was needed in the first place either because Frist was not certain that he had the fifty votes needed to "go nuclear" OR he figured that doing the "deal" was simply a superior strategy, especially from a PR point of view - - with "the deal", the liberal press couldn't accuse the Republicans of "running roughshod over the Constitution", being "bullies", doing "incalculable damage to Constitution", "destroying Senate tradition", etc., etc. This was the kind of press that some "blue state" Republican Senators were nervous about. But not anymore - - because NOW they got some COVER! See, if the rats filibuster virtually ANYBODY, especially a Supreme Court nominee, then the Republicans can throw up their hands and claim that the Democrats went back on their word. "We are left no choice, in the face of broken promises by the Democrats, but to change the filibuster rules at this time."
I happen to believe that "the deal" was a masterpiece of political ingenuity that could only have been dreamed up by the ghost of Lee Atwater over breakfast with Karl Rove. And it could not have happened without the willing participation of Graham and DeWine.
SUMMARY:
As a result of "the deal", the rats cannot sustain a filibuster because seven of them have promised not to filibuster a Supreme Court nominee except under "extrordinary circumstances". (Simply being a conservative does not meet the criteria of "extrordinary circumstances".) IF five of the seven Democrats in the "Gang of Fourteen" are forced by leadership to break their promise and support a filibuster, then the GOP can unabashedly (thanks to the cover provided by "the deal") exercise their "nuclear" option.
And so any talk of a filibuster is indeed "bluster".
Regards,
LH
(NOTE: The only monkey wrench the GOP faces is the threat that the rats have dirt on a RINO that the GOP does not have.)
I also believe, like you, that President Bush is not swayed by polls, or letters. Well, and good. That works to our advantage more often than not. Nevertheless, I consider it my duty, to my country and myself, to inform him of my opinion, and, by repeating the information, to inform him that it is important to me.
It may not change his mind, even if thousands do the same and agree with my positions, in fact, if he thinks the position is wrong, I respect and admire him for holding firm. But at least he knows that the issue, and the position, exist, and this is additional information for him to take into consideration in his decision making process.
It seems to me that this is the very least that I can do, inform my elected representatives of my positions of the issues. I also cc copies of my letters to my congressman and both senators. I urge everyone to do the same.
Once again, I agree. I should have added a caveat to my comments, they are my thinking about the President, and the President only. All other elected officials should hear from the voters and often.
The difference is that they do not have to represent the entire population of the United States as the President does, only a small block of voters. As such, they can be influenced by letters and polls because they know they will be out of a job if they don't keep at least 50% plus 1 happy.
Sorry for the confusion.
WOW! :D
..."a writ of mandamus" is perfect. I'm not schooled in the Legal Arts, so this is very interesting. Can a (private) citizen file such a "Writ" before the court..to force any local/state official/government to act? ..on local/state laws/legislation? ...after reading some 'googled' articles, you can.
Very good posts by both of you on this thread.
`\
THANKS..RUSH! :D
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.